Hi Rob,
I think we've been round the block 3 times with this already...
Please hear me... I've been making just ONE point... that copyright
registration in the States - past, present and future - is unfair and
unnecessary... I've been urging you adopt the system that prevails in the rest
of the world.
Listen to yourself...
> "You can register the work for copyright later."
> "And copyright registration isn't some new measure introduced by the Orphan
> Works Bill. It is a separate issue."
> "Potential infringers have to register the fact that they are using the work
> with the government."
> "Here I was referring to the new registry system for artists under the orphan
> works legislation, not the current system for registering copyright."
I don't think further discussion is going to be fruitful... in the end, as
ever, you will end up with the system you deserve...
Bob
----- Original Message ----
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org
Sent: Tuesday, 20 May, 2008 2:00:45 PM
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill
Quoting bob catchpole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line with the rest of the world.
>
> Yes, but ONLY in the States it doesn't mean anything unless the work
> is registered. What kind of right is that?
It means that you can stop other people copying your work. That is
what a copyright is, the right to control copying.
> http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/05/orphan-works-2008-wolf-in-sheeps.html
That blog post is emotive nonsense. If white supremacists want to use
someone's photos on a poster they aren't going to use Orphan Works
legislation to do it.
This page covers various myths about the bill:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/ow/myths-and-facts
So far it refutes the following:
1. "The bills would take away copyright protection from every work a
visual artist ever created!"
2. "The bills would mandate registration of all visual arts in
expensive, private registries."
3. "Unavailability of statutory damages means that owners cannot get
compensated."
4. "The bills would institute registration formalities in
contravention to international treaty obligations."
5. "Under the proposed new bills, since the entirely of an infringed
work can be included in a derivative use, then the copyright of the
derivative will amount to a copyright of the original."
6. "Any user could fake a ?diligent search? and use the orphan works
limitation to infringe. Couldn?t a bad actor falsify the records of
their search?"
>> The Orphan Works bill ensures that everyone still pays damages, but
>> that they do so fairly.
>
> That rubbish Rob, there's no chance of damages if the work isn't
> registered. ONLY in the States!
You can register the work for copyright later.
And copyright registration isn't some new measure introduced by the
Orphan Works Bill. It is a separate issue.
>> The registry system is optional
>
> The registry system is PERVERSE. Non-participation allows infringers
> to use your work with impunity.
It does not. Potential infringers have to register the fact that they
are using the work with the government. This gives artists a
one-stop-shop for locating people who are claiming that the work is
out of copyright, and thereby to assert copyright against them. They
won't have to spend all day scouring the web for infringers, the
infrngers will have to announce themselves!
>> The registry system is optional and is designed to build on
>> services like DACS (I forget the US equivalent)
>
> A registry system ONLY exists in the States.
Here I was referring to the new registry system for artists under the
orphan works legislation, not the current system for registering
copyright.
Regarding copyright registration, I have given the example of the UK,
and an example of the benefits of registering copyright here.
And around the world musicians, photographers, illustrators and
artists have collecting societies that they must register with in
order to receive royalties from. ASCAP, DACS, etc.
> DACS, a designers and artists association in the UK, is likely
> horrified at the Orphan Works Bill.
Administering Orphan Works would fit perfectly with DACS's current
copyright enforcement. DACS allow artists and designers to register
with them in order to enforce their copyright and to claim fees for
infringement. Many serious artists and designers are members, and DACS
hand out millions in royalties each year. They could extend this to
cover Orphan Works very easily, just as they have extended it to cover
artists resale right.
> Actually, the American registry system is a form of state
> intervention in the market place that isn't tolerated anywhere else.
Copyright *is* a form of state intervention in the market place. Where
it is against the public interest it needs reform. This is the case
with Orphan Works.
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
